New SSPX Motu Proprio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

giuseppeTO

Guest
Link

According to our information, and on the eve of the SSPX ordinations on 27 June in Germany, the Pope wishes to write a second motu proprio in the coming months. The document to be issued this time is not only about the liturgy in Latin, but a more comprehensive reintegration of the SSPX into the Church. This will mean demanding, of course, conditions, but also by engaging the whole Church in this process. Serious!

In other words, the bishops will no longer be entitled to express in a too overt manner open reluctance and even less to slow the return of the traditionalists. One should understand that representatives of these currents regularly complain to the Pope posed about the obstacles placed to their reinstatement by the bishops and their entourage. Until now, Rome and the Ecclesia Dei commission have been bypassing bishops without, however, in general, openly disavow their views.

Thus, in 1988, the Commission regularised very quickly and in a very caring manner the Benedictine abbey of Barroux, without informing or consulting the Archbishop of Avignon at the time, Archbishop Raymond Bouchex. Recently, another signal was given by the Vatican when restoring a traditional parish priest in dissent with his bishop in Calvados, just so as to remind the bishops. Following this Motu proprio, a bishop considered too reluctant to welcome the fundamentalists will certainly have his knuckles rapped.

Benedict XVI and his advisers intend to enjoy the quiet summer to advance along the path of reconciliation. After the authorisation allowing celebration according to all the old liturgical books (Motu proprio of 2007), after the lifting of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, a new stage is opening up, more delicate however: one on divisive theological ground in particular with regard to Vatican II and the Magisterium of the recent Popes. One should know that the Pope has chosen the new secretary of the International Theological Commission, the Dominican Father Charles Morerod, precisely because of his sensitivity towards traditionalist interlocutors.

But Father Morerod is especially noted for his work Tradition and Christian unity. Dogma is made a condition for the possibility of ecumenism (Word and Silence, Paris, 2005), and he kicks hard against more liberal ecumenism (fron theologians such as Fries, Rahner or Tillard) in emphasizing the essential nature of a true Catholic thought, which must be truly theological and philosophical.

Hence, it accentuates the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in a way that does not displease the most “tradi” circles. The same Father Morerod sought to comb the thought of a British Liberal Protestant, John Hick and in which work he specifically attacks the relativist spirit. The new Motu Proprio to come, which will be prepared by the principal drafter of the Motu proprio of 2007, Monsignor Nicola Bux, professor of theology at Bari and advisor of Joseph Ratzinger will justify the importance accorded to the doctrine of the fundamentalist controversy.

Consultor to the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith and waiting for a promotion strategy, Msgr Bux, an Italian priest of 63 years is friendly and discreet, but frighteningly conservative and accurate in his argument, being the determined and tireless craftsman not only of moving towards the integrists but of a restoration of traditional Catholicism as a whole. In his latest book, released last October in Italy, The Reform of Benedict XVI, prefaced by Vittorio Messori, Msgr Bux said that rebuilding the essence of the "sacred and divine liturgy”, will not be done with the hands of humanity. He is convinced that the Liturgy of Saint Pius V honours to a greater degree the sense of the sacred than that of Pope Paul VI. He criticizes also quite fiercely the reform named after the Montini, a true “decomposition” of the liturgy according to him, and exacerbating what the theologian Louis Bouyer called the “decomposition of Catholicism.”

Indeed, Msgr Bux is not confined solely to the liturgical domain. He denounced the opening to the world that defiles the Christian mystery and censures the relaxed life of priests in particular with regard to private life (célibat. …). It is easy to imagine the content and tone of the Motu Proprio of the near future with such a writer. Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who besides health problems is distressed, frustrated and demoralized, no longer has the power to oppose such an ultra-conservative regression. Far from appearing as a defense of the Council, the Motu Proprio will propose a minimalist reading, erasing the new and challenging spirit. In sum, a council “in the spirit of tradition” as Archbishop Lefebvre recognized can be accepted! Is this still the Council whose importance Paul VI proclaimed in 1976 in the face of traditionalist dissent? Nothing is less certain.
 
Link

According to our information, and on the eve of the SSPX ordinations on 27 June in Germany, the Pope wishes to write a second motu proprio in the coming months. The document to be issued this time is not only about the liturgy in Latin, but a more comprehensive reintegration of the SSPX into the Church. This will mean demanding, of course, conditions, but also by engaging the whole Church in this process. Serious!

In other words, the bishops will no longer be entitled to express in a too overt manner open reluctance and even less to slow the return of the traditionalists. One should understand that representatives of these currents regularly complain to the Pope posed about the obstacles placed to their reinstatement by the bishops and their entourage. Until now, Rome and the Ecclesia Dei commission have been bypassing bishops without, however, in general, openly disavow their views.

Thus, in 1988, the Commission regularised very quickly and in a very caring manner the Benedictine abbey of Barroux, without informing or consulting the Archbishop of Avignon at the time, Archbishop Raymond Bouchex. Recently, another signal was given by the Vatican when restoring a traditional parish priest in dissent with his bishop in Calvados, just so as to remind the bishops. Following this Motu proprio, a bishop considered too reluctant to welcome the fundamentalists will certainly have his knuckles rapped.

Benedict XVI and his advisers intend to enjoy the quiet summer to advance along the path of reconciliation. After the authorisation allowing celebration according to all the old liturgical books (Motu proprio of 2007), after the lifting of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, a new stage is opening up, more delicate however: one on divisive theological ground in particular with regard to Vatican II and the Magisterium of the recent Popes. One should know that the Pope has chosen the new secretary of the International Theological Commission, the Dominican Father Charles Morerod, precisely because of his sensitivity towards traditionalist interlocutors.

But Father Morerod is especially noted for his work Tradition and Christian unity. Dogma is made a condition for the possibility of ecumenism (Word and Silence, Paris, 2005), and he kicks hard against more liberal ecumenism (fron theologians such as Fries, Rahner or Tillard) in emphasizing the essential nature of a true Catholic thought, which must be truly theological and philosophical.

Hence, it accentuates the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in a way that does not displease the most “tradi” circles. The same Father Morerod sought to comb the thought of a British Liberal Protestant, John Hick and in which work he specifically attacks the relativist spirit. The new Motu Proprio to come, which will be prepared by the principal drafter of the Motu proprio of 2007, Monsignor Nicola Bux, professor of theology at Bari and advisor of Joseph Ratzinger will justify the importance accorded to the doctrine of the fundamentalist controversy.

Consultor to the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith and waiting for a promotion strategy, Msgr Bux, an Italian priest of 63 years is friendly and discreet, but frighteningly conservative and accurate in his argument, being the determined and tireless craftsman not only of moving towards the integrists but of a restoration of traditional Catholicism as a whole. In his latest book, released last October in Italy, The Reform of Benedict XVI, prefaced by Vittorio Messori, Msgr Bux said that rebuilding the essence of the "sacred and divine liturgy”, will not be done with the hands of humanity. He is convinced that the Liturgy of Saint Pius V honours to a greater degree the sense of the sacred than that of Pope Paul VI. He criticizes also quite fiercely the reform named after the Montini, a true “decomposition” of the liturgy according to him, and exacerbating what the theologian Louis Bouyer called the “decomposition of Catholicism.”

Indeed, Msgr Bux is not confined solely to the liturgical domain. He denounced the opening to the world that defiles the Christian mystery and censures the relaxed life of priests in particular with regard to private life (célibat. …). It is easy to imagine the content and tone of the Motu Proprio of the near future with such a writer. Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who besides health problems is distressed, frustrated and demoralized, no longer has the power to oppose such an ultra-conservative regression. Far from appearing as a defense of the Council, the Motu Proprio will propose a minimalist reading, erasing the new and challenging spirit. In sum, a council “in the spirit of tradition” as Archbishop Lefebvre recognized can be accepted! Is this still the Council whose importance Paul VI proclaimed in 1976 in the face of traditionalist dissent? Nothing is less certain.
Excellent comments. You know, when you think about it, what would help sooooooooooooo much, is if the Holy Father would say the Traditional Mass publicly
Why doesn’t he??
 
I agree that all signs indicate that Pope Benedict will continue to work to bring traditionalists that are in danger of schism more fully back to the Church. I don’t see any indications that he wants to promote a “minimalist” reading of the Vatican II documents.

The Pope is very much a conservative on liturgical issues, and the liturgical changes are what disturbed many of the laity that have drifted to groups that are not in full communion. But the Pope has not shown any signs that he is theologically retrogressive. To reunite the traditionalists will have to accept the teaching authority of Vatican II, including the Church’s current teaching on things like the mysterious extension of saving grace to non-Christians, salvation for the Jews, etc. I think that the Holy Father will be able to convince many of the traditionalist laity that there is a place for them in the Church. But if the leadership remains obstinate in teaching contrary to the current Dogmatic Constitution, I don’t see them regaining canonical authority.
 
Excellent comments. You know, when you think about it, what would help sooooooooooooo much, is if the Holy Father would say the Traditional Mass publicly
Why doesn’t he??
he doesn’t?

I thought he had 😊
 
It appears that the Pope has chosen the right set of folks to discuss these issues, based on this French magazine article. The Pope has shown some retrogressive moments in defining the Catholic Church as being the True Church, thus unofficially giving Lumen Gentium (subsists) a more traditional interpretation.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pope is looking forward to giving a more traditional interpretation to several of the V2 documents. The Pope, Cardinal Castrillon, and now Cardinal Levada have all met multiple times with Bp Fellay and the the other SSPX bishops. If there was no hope of regularization or if were a long shot, I don’t believe that the events of 2009 to date concerning the Vatican and the SSPX would have taken place. We hear what is discussed in these meetings in general but we don’t know what was exchanged between the parties in confidence.

The SSPX accepts V2 as a valid council, whose purpose was to be pastoral in nature, not creating or changing previously established dogmas of the church. Indeed, the anathematizing wording needed to establish infallibly-proclaimed dogma was not used in any V2 document. A validly invoked Council enjoys the teaching power of the episcopacy in the documents it creates. How those documents were later interpreted to conflict with previously promulgated dogmatic teachings will be at the crux of the matter. The Council gave no force of infallibility to any of its declarations and as such, we are not oblidged to accept any of these teachings as dogmatic. As an example, doctors of the church and Popes have all taught, with the teaching authority of the church, on topics like Limbo. No Pope or Council has declared this belief to be dogmatic and therefore, no Catholic needs to accept the teachings on Limbo as dogma (required to be believed).
 
To reunite, the traditionalists will have to accept the teaching authority of Vatican II, including the Church’s current teaching on things like the mysterious extension of saving grace to non-Christians, salvation for the Jews, etc.
Unless we’re talking about Feenyites, traditionalist hold to the faith of the Church concerning salvation. There is no salvation outside of Christ and His Church and all souls have an obligation to know and profess this truth. If they are invincibly ignorant of these truths then they may be saved, but in spite of their religion, not because of it.
 
he doesn’t?

I thought he had 😊
Not since becoming Pope. I believe, however, he may have when he was still a Cardinal. The most he’s done as Pope is incorporate Latin into the Ordinary Form (which he also still celebrates versus populum).

Personally, I was hoping that, at least, he would start celebrating the Ordinary Form ad orientum. Not having even gone that far, I don’t see a Papal High Mass coming anytime soon. Perhaps he doesn’t think the world is ready for it yet…
 
Not since becoming Pope. I believe, however, he may have when he was still a Cardinal. The most he’s done as Pope is incorporate Latin into the Ordinary Form (which he also still celebrates versus populum).

Personally, I was hoping that, at least, he would start celebrating the Ordinary Form ad orientum. Not having even gone that far, I don’t see a Papal High Mass coming anytime soon. Perhaps he doesn’t think the world is ready for it yet…
It’s my understanding that the Holy Father does celebrate ad orientum when he celebrates Mass in the Sistine chapel. Mass in St. Peters has always been celebrated versus populum since the altar faces west. In order for Mass to be offered in the eastward direction, the pope would have to celebrate facing in the direction of the people. But I do hope the pope will one day publically celebrate the Traditional Rite. I can only imagine the glory and grandeur of such a liturgy! 🙂
 
It’s my understanding that the Holy Father does celebrate ad orientum when he celebrates Mass in the Sistine chapel. Mass in St. Peters has always been celebrated versus populum since the altar faces west. In order for Mass to be offered in the eastward direction, the pope would have to celebrate facing in the direction of the people. But I do hope the pope will one day publically celebrate the Traditional Rite. I can only imagine the glory and grandeur of such a liturgy! 🙂
Celebrating ad orientam in the Sistine Chapel is not so much a matter of preference, but instead it’s sort of required . . . IIRC from the one Mass I saw on EWTN, the main altar is backed against a wall.

Chris
 
Rumors like this float from time to time. Sometimes they have substance, usually not.
 
It’s my understanding that the Holy Father does celebrate ad orientum when he celebrates Mass in the Sistine chapel. Mass in St. Peters has always been celebrated versus populum since the altar faces west. In order for Mass to be offered in the eastward direction, the pope would have to celebrate facing in the direction of the people. But I do hope the pope will one day publically celebrate the Traditional Rite. I can only imagine the glory and grandeur of such a liturgy! 🙂
\No doubt, but the Massess that he has outside, are STILL done versus populum
and all the Masses he has away from Rome, are always the Novus Ordo versus populum.
 
The Holy Father may not celebrated the Extraordinary Form, but his Ordinary Form masses are quite traditional and grand. I had the honor of being at a few papal masses during Holy Week this year (while visiting Rome). The Holy Father chanted the Holy Mass in Latin, with glorious polyphonic choirs, etc…very lovely. In fact, these “Ordinary Form” masses, in terms of pomp and grandeur, certainly outshined any Extraordinary Form masses I’ve ever been to! (Don’t get me wrong, I adore the EF and would love the Holy Father to celebrate it…a papal high mass would be just that much more grand than a well done papal Latin OF mass).
 
\No doubt, but the Massess that he has outside, are STILL done versus populum
and all the Masses he has away from Rome, are always the Novus Ordo versus populum.
True. But he always uses the Benedictine arrangement, facing a crucifix with three candles on either side. While he is still technically facing the people, the fact that he is directly facing a crucifix brings the truth of what the Mass is into better focus.
 
I agree that all signs indicate that Pope Benedict will continue to work to bring traditionalists that are in danger of schism more fully back to the Church.
Who’s in danger of schism?
I don’t see any indications that he wants to promote a “minimalist” reading of the Vatican II documents.
How would you define “minimalist” in this case? Also, I would hope that the pope would simply promote an orthodox reading of these docs and shove Vatican II’s “spirit” out the window.
The Pope is very much a conservative on liturgical issues, and the liturgical changes are what disturbed many of the laity that have drifted to groups that are not in full communion. But the Pope has not shown any signs that he is theologically retrogressive.
Theologically retrogressive? I must ask, what new dogma was defined at Vatican II that would make “traditionalist” beliefs retrogressive in your opinion?
To reunite the traditionalists will have to accept the teaching authority of Vatican II,
Something which the SSPX already recognizes insofar as the interpretation of the council docs is traditional, rather than radical.
including the Church’s current teaching on things like the mysterious extension of saving grace to non-Christians,
I didn’t realize that “trads” believe that non-Christians can’t be saved.
salvation for the Jews
In what manner? Is the ‘new’ teaching actually any different than the old?
I think that the Holy Father will be able to convince many of the traditionalist laity that there is a place for them in the Church.
If you’re referencing the SSPX, then of course there is a place for them…especially considering that they are not outside the Church
But if the leadership remains obstinate in teaching contrary to the current Dogmatic Constitution, I don’t see them regaining canonical authority.
In what way does the SSPX do that?
 
I think that the Holy Father will be able to convince many of the traditionalist laity that there is a place for them in the Church.
I think you may be imposing the V2 groupthink that laity need a “place” or “involvement” in the church above and beyond the involvement of the laity before the council. Since the council, “involvement” has generally meant taking over duties and responsibilities that were always the prerogative of the priest. The “place” of the laity is according to your state of life either as a single Catholic, a religious, or a parent raising a family. I am not sure what other “place” a Traditional Catholic would be expecting from the church or the Holy Father, that perfect communion with Rome might offer. Most of those who assist at an SSPX chapel like myself, are perfectly happy with daily Mass, weekly Benediction, and regular Confession. We have enough Chapel Family Festivals to keep me, my wife, and our children completely happy … (and worn out!)
 
Who’s in danger of schism?
The SSPX is in danger of schism according to Pope Benedict who said, “An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.” This is a quote from the same March 12th letter I linked to earlier.
How would you define “minimalist” in this case? Also, I would hope that the pope would simply promote an orthodox reading of these docs and shove Vatican II’s “spirit” out the window.
“Minimalist” is the term the article quoted in the OP used. I don’t know what it means, either, which is why I put it in quotes. I don’t know that “spirit” of Vatican II means, for that matter. Pope Benedict, and Pope John Paul II, have both consistently said that Vatican II needs to be implemented, not shoved out of a window.
Theologically retrogressive? I must ask, what new dogma was defined at Vatican II that would make “traditionalist” beliefs retrogressive in your opinion?
No new dogma was defined, but the council did provide a fuller explanation and understanding of several existing dogmas. By theologically retrogressive, I mean an attempt to undo the last century of growth and understanding in the Church’s theology.
Something which the SSPX already recognizes insofar as the interpretation of the council docs is traditional, rather than radical.
Whether I agree with this depends on what you mean by radical. Is it radical to believe that all can be saved by Christ, even those that do not profess to be Christians? Is it radical to believe that the Catholic faith is the best expression of God’s teaching on earth, but that elements of His truth can be found in other religions, particularly Judaism and Islam? These are some of the things I have seen so-called traditionalists deny.
I didn’t realize that “trads” believe that non-Christians can’t be saved.
Well, there is not one consistent teaching for the traditionalist movement, but the writings of the leaders of the SSPX tend to reject an implicit Baptism of Desire for non-Christians and/or to define “invicible ignorance” in a way that excludes most modern people from the doctrine.
In what manner? Is the ‘new’ teaching actually any different than the old?
This question was about salvation for the Jews. The new teaching is not any different from the original teaching. But between the beginning and now a significant portion of the Church came to believe that Jews suffered from a blood curse that prevented them from being good people - that they were born morally stunted and could not be saved. Vatican II reemphasized that the Jews are the original Chosen People, and that no special curse or stain lies on them. Before the Bishop Williamson flap the SSPX had articles about the curse on the Jews posted on their website; they are down now. I don’t know if that reflects a change of position or not.
If you’re referencing the SSPX, then of course there is a place for them…especially considering that they are not outside the Church
I think they are still “inside” the Church only because of the efforts of the Pope and his predecessor. The Pope recognizes that most of the laity want an opportunity to preserve their traditional form of worship and the cultural identity that they think of as Catholic. The Pope recognizes and admits that the Church did not do a good job of dealing with their legitimate desire to preserve those things; I think he feels the same way. But I don’t think that the Vatican will find that there is a place in the Church for rogue clergy who insist on performing illicit ordainations or who put conditions on the teaching authority of the Church.
In what way does the SSPX do that?
In addition to the examples I gave above relating to EENS and Jews, the SSPX rejects the teaching authority of the Church every time they condition acceptance of the teaching authority of the Church by saying that they only accept the Catechism or the Dogmatic Constituton insofar as it is consistent with the past teachings of the Church. The Church has said, in full Ecumenical Council and in the persons of four Popes, that the teachings of Vatican II are consistent with the Traditions of the Church. SSPX doesn’t get to pick and choose the parts it likes.
 
I think you may be imposing the V2 groupthink that laity need a “place” or “involvement” in the church above and beyond the involvement of the laity before the council. Since the council, “involvement” has generally meant taking over duties and responsibilities that were always the prerogative of the priest. The “place” of the laity is according to your state of life either as a single Catholic, a religious, or a parent raising a family. I am not sure what other “place” a Traditional Catholic would be expecting from the church or the Holy Father, that perfect communion with Rome might offer. Most of those who assist at an SSPX chapel like myself, are perfectly happy with daily Mass, weekly Benediction, and regular Confession. We have enough Chapel Family Festivals to keep me, my wife, and our children completely happy … (and worn out!)
My comment had nothing to do with the role of the laity in the Church. By place in the Church I mean that they can remain in the Church, and not face formal schism. What I mean is that my impression is that most of those invovled with SSPX are not really seperating themselves from the Church in a theological sense. The Pope’s statements indicate that the Church recognizes that it is legitimate and understable for some to prefer the older form of the liturgy, and that he is working to provide that for them. As the Pope has said, the real impediment has always been doctrinal - the SSPX leadership’s rejection of the teaching authority of the Church.
 
As the Pope has said, the real impediment has always been doctrinal - the SSPX leadership’s rejection of the teaching authority of the Church.
This is yet another frustrating misconception. The impediment has never been doctrinal. As you know, Ab. Lefebvre signed the V2 documents. While they were not perfect(ly clear), they were promulgated. No one expected that they would be used to contradict clear areas of the deposit of faith.

The “teaching authority of the church” only extends to teaching the faith as handed down and that is also the boundary of infallibility. One cannot take a V2 document and use it to justify and/or implement a new doctrine. The SSPX argues that this is what has been done in the period since the council documents were published. The doctrinal discussions will serve to clarify that where this has been done, a reiteration of the original and true meaning will be affirmed by the Vatican. That will be the solution. If the “teaching authority of the church” means that what has previously been taught infallibly by Popes and Councils as error is now OK based on a modern reading of the V2 documents, then you have redefined the Teaching Authority of the Church. There can be no new revelation on what constitutes such things as the means for salvation, no matter how much we’d like to snuggle up our non-Catholic brethren without converting them. I think the Pope knows this and will use the occasion to kill two birds with one stone, namely, the clarification on where the meaning of V2 documents have gone astray, which he has personally lamented in his pre-papal writings, and reintegration of the Society and those Independent priests, Monasteries, and Convents that remain associated with them.
 
Well, there is not one consistent teaching for the traditionalist movement, but the writings of the leaders of the SSPX tend to reject an implicit Baptism of Desire for non-Christians and/or to define “invicible ignorance” in a way that excludes most modern people from the doctrine.
Actually, the SSPX publishes a book entitled “Is Feenyism Catholic?” which explains very clearly the Church’s teaching in favor of BOB and BOD. I don’t know if it’s wise to assume that most modern people are truly invincibly ignorant, but if they are, that doesn’t mean they don’t still need the truth. In season and out of season, we have the obligation to witness the truth of the Christ and His Catholic Church to all those who do not know it. Praise God that the SSPX stands up against the majority of the modern, and very un-Catholic, ecumenical practices which put the Catholic faith on par with every other belief system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top